Jai Bhawani Stone Crusher vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax
Facts
The petitioner, Jai Bhawani Stone Crusher, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, submitted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner conceded that no such application had been filed. The cancellation order was dated 29.03.2025.
Held
The Court acknowledged the existence of the alternative remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of GST registration cancellation. The petitioner had not yet availed this remedy. However, considering that the enforcement of the Act was in its initial stages and that GST compliance could be complex for common citizens, the Court decided not to let the limitation period strictly bar reconsideration. The Court reasoned that cancellation of registration directly impacts a citizen's livelihood and can also lead to revenue loss for the State. Therefore, the Court condoned the delay in invoking Section 30 of the Act. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an application under Section 30 within three weeks from the date of the order, it shall be considered and disposed of within three weeks thereafter. The petitioner was also directed to file pending returns up to the date of the cancellation order. The impugned order dated 29.03.2025 was set aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek intervention from the High Court via a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available for revocation of GST registration cancellation. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, acknowledged the existence of the alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Act but had not availed it. The petitioner did not present arguments against the availability of the statutory remedy. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner ought to pursue the remedy available under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for an application to revoke the order of cancellation of registration.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Shobhit Saharia.
The short question involved in this writ petition is correctness of the cancellation of the GST registration.
After hearing for some time, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the provisions of Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), wherein the registered dealer, who has suffered an order of cancellation of the re
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.